Note: More than 12,450 persons
are eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them
share the same name or similar names. All discipline
reports should be read carefully for names, addresses
and bar numbers.

PAUL T. BEASLEY
OSB #90154
The Dalles
Form B resignation

Effective Sept. 27, 2005, the Oregon
Supreme Court accepted the Form B resignation of The
Dalles lawyer, Paul T. Beasley. At the time of resignation,
there was a pending formal complaint alleging that
Beasley engaged in criminal conduct, engaged in conduct
involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, engaged
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,
made misleading communications and engaged in the unlawful
practice of law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(2), DR
1-102(A)(3), DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 2-101(A)(1), DR 3-101(B),
ORPC 5.5(a), ORPC 8.4(a)(3) and ORPC 8.4(a)(4). There
were also allegations that Beasley failed to respond
fully to disciplinary counsel’s inquiries, in violation
of DR 1-103(C) and ORPC 8.1(a)(2).

Beasley was admitted to practice in 1990.
Beasley’s resignation recites that open client files
and records will be placed in the custody of various
resident Oregon lawyers who were appointed by the circuit
court to represent Beasley’s former clients, while
closed client files and records will be placed in the
custody of Jennifer Hinman, Esq.

KEITH D. CHURCH
OSB #96242
Santa Clara, Calif.
Form B resignation

Effective Sept. 27, 2005, the Oregon
Supreme Court accepted the Form B resignation of Keith
D. Church. At the time of the resignation, a formal
disciplinary proceeding was pending against Church
in connection with six client matters alleging multiple
violations of the following disciplinary rules: DR
1-103(C) and RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to cooperate in
a disciplinary investigation); DR 2-106(A) (charge
or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee); DR
2-110(A)(2) (improper withdrawal); DR 6-101(B) (neglect
of a legal matter) and DR 9-101(C)(4) (failure to provide
client property). Church was also charged with single
violations of the following disciplinary rules: DR
1-102(A)(2) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely
on fitness to practice; DR 9-101(C)(3) (failure to
account for client funds) and RPC 1.15-1(d) (failure
to timely provide client property, as requested).

Church was admitted to practice in 1996.
Church indicated in his resignation that his client
files have been or will be placed in the custody of
Andrew C. Balyeat, Balyeat & Gregory LLP, 920 NW
Bond Street, Ste 209, Bend, Oregon, 97701.

DANIEL Q. O’DELL
OSB #89102
Portland
2-year suspension

Effective Sept. 27, 2005, the Oregon
Supreme Court accepted a stipulation for discipline
suspending Daniel Q. O’Dell from the practice of law
for 2 years, to run consecutive with a pending 3-year
suspension on similar violations.

In the stipulation, O’Dell acknowledged
that he neglected a number of criminal appellate and
post-conviction matters (DR 6-101(B)) and then failed
to cooperate in the bar’s subsequent investigations
(DR 1-103(C)). O’Dell also admitted that he neglected
and failed to properly or timely withdraw from another
client matter in violation of DR 2-110(A)(2), DR 2-110(B)(2),
DR 6-101(B) and DR 7-101(A)(2).

The stipulation recited mitigating factors
including personal and emotional problems, but the
sanction was aggravated by the number of offenses,
O’Dell’s prior discipline and his substantial experience
in the practice of law.

RANDY RAY RICHARDSON
OSB #94418
Portland
6-month suspension

Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline
approved by the disciplinary board, Portland lawyer
Randy Ray Richardson was suspended for six months,
effective Aug. 15, 2005, for violation of: DR 1-102(A)(3)
(conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation);
DR 7-104(A)(2) (giving advice to an unrepresented person)
and DR 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly engaging in illegal conduct).
The charges arose out of two matters.

In the first matter Richardson represented
the defendant husband in a criminal case arising from
husband’s alleged assault upon his wife. Expecting
that the wife would be served with a grand jury subpoena,
Richardson advised the wife about the requirements
for valid service of a subpoena and that she was not
required to appear before the grand jury unless the
subpoena was validly served. Richardson did not advise
the wife to secure counsel. Richardson stipulated that
this conduct violated DR 7-104(A)(2).

The second matter arose while Richardson
was employed as a deputy district attorney. An acquaintance
of Richardson’s began a debt collection proceeding
in small claims court against another of Richardson’s
acquaintances. On behalf of the plaintiff, and not
in his capacity as a deputy district attorney, Richardson
undertook to have the small claims notice served upon
the defendant. He contacted a uniformed police officer
and requested that this officer serve the notice. Richardson
knew or had reason to know that the police officer
believed Richardson was acting within the course and
scope of his employment as a deputy district attorney
when he asked the officer to effect service, but Richardson
did nothing to correct this misimpression. Then, with
the intent to obtain a benefit or to harm the defendant,
Richardson represented to the police officer that the
small claims proceeding related to fraud allegedly
committed by the defendant. He also instructed the
officer that when he effected service, he should advise
the defendant that her automobile might be involved
in a fraud and that the Oregon Attorney General’s Office
might contact her in the future. Richardson stipulated
that this conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 7-102(A)(8).

In arriving at a sanction, the stipulation
recited the injury suffered by the individuals affected
by Richardson’s conduct, as well as the actual and
potential injury suffered by the government agencies
and the public. In aggravation, the stipulation considered
Richardson’s dishonest or selfish motive and multiple
offenses. In mitigation, the stipulation recited that
Richardson had no prior disciplinary record and was
relatively inexperienced in the practice of law.

From Fall 2001 to Spring 2002, Carreon
was employed by SEG as house counsel for its U.S. legal
matters and business operations in British Columbia,
when Carreon was not admitted or licensed to practice
law in any province in Canada. Carreon did not apply
for or obtain a permit to act as house counsel for
SEG, in violation of British Columbia rules.

As counsel for SEG, Carreon held in his
trust account settlement proceeds for the benefit of
SEG, received in connection with a litigation matter.
Without consulting with SEG or obtaining its express
consent, Carreon utilized $1,400 of the settlement
proceeds to pay a portion of a money judgment that
had been entered against Carreon and his wife for a
residential lease they signed in connection with his
employment in Canada, believing that SEG would ultimately
be responsible for his lease obligation.

In the stipulation, Carreon admitted
that acting as house counsel in Canada was in violation
of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction,
and that by utilizing the client settlement funds,
he failed to properly maintain client funds in his
lawyer trust account.

Carreon’s sanction was aggravated by
a selfish motive, multiple offenses and his substantial
experience in the practice of law. Carreon was admitted
in Oregon in 1993 and in California in 1987. However,
in mitigation, the stipulation recited that Carreon
had no prior discipline and that he displayed a cooperative
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.

MATTHEW W. DERBY
OSB # 94291
Roseburg
1-year suspension

Effective Oct. 11, 2005, a trial panel
suspended Roseburg attorney Matthew W. Derby for violating:
DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice); DR 1-103(C) (failure to cooperate in a
disciplinary investigation); DR 6-101(B) (neglect of
a legal matter); DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out
a contract of employment) and DR 7-106(A) (disregard
a ruling of a tribunal).

Derby had undertaken to represent the
personal representative in a probate proceeding, but
then failed to timely or fully comply with many of
the statutory and court requirements, or adequately
communicate with his client, resulting in the need
for a number of court notices, citations and hearings.
Derby failed to appear in response to a citation directed
at him personally and was found in contempt of court.
Derby then failed to respond to disciplinary counsel’s
inquiries about his conduct.

In imposing a one-year suspension, the
trial panel found that both the court and Derby’s client
suffered actual injury as a result of Derby’s conduct.
The trial panel noted that the sanction was aggravated
by: Derby’s prior disciplinary offenses on similar
violations; the multiple violations; Derby’s substantial
experience in the practice of law and the vulnerability
of his victims. However, the sanction was mitigated
by a finding that Derby was affected by a mental disability
at the time of the misconduct and was experiencing
personal or emotional problems, his lack of dishonest
or selfish motive and his remorse.

Miller was consulted by a client regarding
potential tort claims against the state of Oregon.
Miller declined to pursue the claims, but Miller agreed
to file a tort claim notice to preserve any cause of
action the client might have against the state while
the client determined whether to pursue the claims
without Miller’s assistance. The client consulted Miller
about various matters over the following months. On
at least one occasion, the client asked about the tort
claim notice. Miller assured his client that the notice
would be timely filed. However, Miller did no work
to prepare a tort notice, and Miller failed to file
the notice within the 180-day period for giving such
notice or at any time thereafter. As a result, Miller’s
client was denied the opportunity to pursue his tort
claims against the state and to have those claims decided
on their merits. In arriving at a sanction, the stipulation
noted that Miller had no record of prior discipline.